From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Anti-pedophile activism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Is it really of any value to put "Anti-Pornography Movement" in the see also for this article? I can't see any relation between a movement which fights against unlawful, felonious activity and a movement which fights against something that has been determined by courts to be legal under most circumstances.
Furthermore, I believe that tagging "Anti-Pornography Movement" with Anti-pedophile activism is meant as a subtle hit against the movement described in this article. 71.194.27.178 (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to think further about that point. A lot of anti-pedophile activism warns against related pornography and there have been plenty of cases. In either case, it would need careful editing. Jelly Roal (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Agree with new editor Jelly Roal about care being needed. I also agree that tagging one to the other is a hit. Yes, there is pedophilic pornography out there, but is the "anti-pornography movement" out to stop illegal porn ("only") or all porn, and thus focusing on legal stuff? It seems the latter has the wealth of face validity. They may be worthy of See Also listings, as they are both tied to sexuality and objectionable sexuality, but to say that one equates to the other is ridiculous. One can easily be anti-pedophilia and pro- (or neutral... "who-cares-ish") pornography. • VigilancePrime • • • 19 07:32 Feb '08
-
-
-
- It would be more relevant to talk about the various priorities of anti-porn activist groups. It seems likely that they will focus their efforts on dealing with pornography involving children, animals, according to the duty of care issue. I recall the Calvin Klein incident in NY where certain adverts were considered pornography and involved underage models. That seems to be a related issue. I'll take a look at the research on proquest. Jelly Roal (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pornography and the advertisements don't even overlap in their scope of relevance. Pornography is a pretty well-defined term and the ads, though they may have been objectionable, were clearly not pornography. By the same token, pedophilia is well-defined, and just because someone is a child molester does not mean they are de facto a pedophile (despite popular colloquialisms). In this article, though, I don't think any sort of anti-pornography warrants a mention except for work to end pedophilic pornography. That makes sense, as it is within the scope of this article, eh? A thought. • VigilancePrime • • • 19 07:32 Feb '08
-
-
-
-
-
- Or we could simply stick to quoting the facts. If antiporn activists have objected to ads on the basis that they promote or glamorise pedophilia, then it can be added to the article Jelly Roal (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Death threat or excuse for censorship?
A user has removed a link to a static page on boychat.org (which verifies the board's webmaster history), because he feels that the forum element of the same site contains a death threat against himself:
- redacted
Hmmmm. The fruits that scrutiny bears. GrooV (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a necessary detail. This article is about anti-pediphile activism, not about the websamters of Boychat and their tenures. Repeating personal attacks isn't helpful either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- There may be some relevant material on the newsgroup. I'll have a look. There are wikipedia related chats there also. Kind of interesting! Jelly Roal (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
